|
Mozart
is not a composer whose music Martha Argerich has often visited.
This has been our loss. She has a natural propensity for Mozart's
grace, his ever-shifting balance of light and shadow, and perfectly
captures a smoldering quality that underlines much of his music.
Moreover, she fans the music's flames with sparks of wit, vivacity
and humor - all too rare qualities in Mozart playing these days.
With qualities like these, one would seriously wish that Argerich
would record at least all the late concertos, and perhaps some of
the middle ones to boot, not to mention the sonatas and other piano
works.
 These
concertos, on the other hand, are a slightly different matter, and
show how Argerich's approach may have changed over the last 20 years.
This disc should have been issued with a warning label for those
who like their Mozart dainty and sporting perfect table manners.
There is a headiness and urgency more in keeping with Argerich's
performances of Romantic repertoire, though not at the same level
of intensity as in her Chopin, Schumann or Tchaikovsky. Conductor
and pianist Alexandre Rabinovich, who has played much two-piano
music with her and shares a penchant for propulsiveness, may have
urged Argerich on to this effect.
This fleetness makes
itself acutely felt in the D minor Concerto, K. 466. One
of only two piano concertos Mozart wrote in a minor key, it possesses
a heightened sense of drama that not only foretells Beethoven, but
also fully evokes the dark world of his opera Don Giovanni.
Rabinovich ups the ante still further, opening the concerto at a
near-precipitous tempo, with growling lower strings and explosive
outbursts from brass and timpani. Though he does not slight the
mystery or pathos of Mozart's writing, he also emphasizes a modicum
of boldness that most conductors try to downplay. This approach
will excite some listeners and bother others, depending on their
individual tastes and openness of mind, but it is perfectly valid.
Argerich's playing
is not quite as edgy as Rabinovich's conducting, but neither does
it lack for contrast. The trademarks of her style are all in place
- the bejeweled touch, whiplash-sharp attacks and sudden darkening
of shade, turn of phrase or decrescendo that heightens and add distinction
to passages. But while there is still taste and proportion, there
is also more muscle and sinew than she has previously allowed herself
in Classical repertoire. This is big, bold Mozart, and it is appropriate
in this context that Argerich uses Beethoven's cadenzas for this
concerto. Anything less would seem too small-scale for this style
of playing.
The other two concertos
are not as successful. The emphatic approach that worked for K.
466 does not fit as well for the Concerto in F major, K. 459.
This more light-hearted work needs charm and grace to succeed in
performance, and unfortunately both are lacking here. Also, Rabinovich
does not serve himself entirely well as soloist; his playing sounds
artificial, as though he is thinking about the mechanics of what
he is playing instead of interpreting the music. The concept behind
having him perform this concerto may have been intriguing - have
Argerich play one concerto, Rabinovich the next, then have them
both play for a third - but in this case, the idea was better than
its execution.
The Concerto in
E-flat major for two pianos, K. 365, fares better. Jorg Faerber
allows the orchestra to smile more than Rabinovich did, adding a
measure of much-needed charm and elegance. There is also a calm
and serenity in the Andante, despite the reasonably quick
tempo preferred by the soloists, that allows the music to breathe
and for us to enjoy the moment. The Rondeau is quick but
playful, and we get some truly joyous playing out of the soloists,
as though Argerich finally prevailed on Rabinovich to lighten up
and have some fun.
Unfortunately, Rabinovich
is playing first piano to Argerich's second, which means he is calling
many of the shots here. Although Argerich manages to shine through
from time to time, and her subtle phrasing manages to leaven some
of Rabinovich's playing, there is still a mechanical quality from
time to time that detracts from the proceedings. The going here
is not as rough as it was in K. 459, and there are some interesting
touches, especially in the slow movement, that I would not want
to be without. But neither is this an entirely pleasant listening
experience.
The extremely close
miking and lack of hall ambience in the sonic picture does not help
matters, either. There is clarity, but the instruments are so close
that I feel as though the concertmaster's bow is about to poke me
in the face. As much as I enjoy hearing detail in recordings, I
don't have to have the music as microscopically illustrated as it
is here. A recording location with a warmer sound would also help
matters immensely.
So is this recording
worth listening to? Yes. If you are willing to make allowances and
open your thoughts of what Mozart's music should sound like, two
of the three concertos here are worth the effort. As much as we
may listen to music out of pure enjoyment or out of a need for fulfillment,
it does not hurt to have a performance challenge our preconceptions
at least once in a while and let us consider new possibilities.
In that sense, Argerich and Rabinovich have done us a service. You
may not entirely like what they are doing, but you cannot fault
them purely for the strength of their convictions.
JONATHAN
YUNGKANS
has been challenged many times, but never threatened with a piece
of music. Well, maybe once. But he'd never recommend it, so you're
safe.
To
respond to this article, please post your comments to classical@inkpot.com
821:
2.11.2000 ©Jonathan Yungkans
All
original texts are copyrighted. Please seek permission from the
Classical Editor
if you wish to reproduce/quote Inkpot material.
|
